Sunday, 23 August 2015

Say No to Doctors: Most 'Scientific' Medical Research is Fraudulent

Say No to Doctors

Most 'Scientific' Medical Research
is Fraudulent

by Makia
Freeman

Insiders & experts say that most medical research is a fraud

Fraudulent
scientific research is rife throughout the world due to the power of
monetary influence wielded by Big Pharma, the giant cartel of multinational
pharmaceutical corporations started over 100 years ago by the Rockefellers.
This fraudulent scientific
research is now so widespread and pervasive it is become an open secret. There is
a long list of medical journal editors, doctors and professors on the
“outside”, former Big Pharma employees and executives on the “inside”, as well
as government officials somewhere in between, who have stepped forward as
whistleblowers and acknowledged the fraud. Money buys favorable research.
Period. This is not really surprising, given the history of Rockefeller Western medicine and the fact that Big Pharma’s business model
is based on “managing” disease, “treating” symptoms and keeping patients on the
hamster wheel, rather than actually healing them completely.

Everyone
Knows How the “Game” Works

Whistleblower
Dr. Peter Rost, former vice president of Pfizer, a giant Big Pharma
company, spelled it out. In the video clip embedded above, taken from the
documentary One More Girl,
he reveals that everyone knows how the “game” works:

“Universities,
health organizations, everybody that I have encountered … are out there ….
begging for money. (Big Pharma corporations) use that money to basically buy
influence … (Big Pharma provides) grants for various kinds of research …
make sure they (scientific researchers) became beholden … Everyone
obviously knows this is how things work.”

“They
(scientific researchers) are not going to continue to get money unless they’re
saying what you (i.e. Big Pharma) want them to say. They know it, you know it,
and it’s only maybe the public that doesn’t know it.”

In this way,
the almost the entire medical scientific community has been compromised
and has become thoroughly untrustworthy.

Fraudulent
Scientific Research Exposed by Medical Journal Editors and Professors

Look at what
numerous key experts are saying about this epidemic of fraudulent
scientific research. Dr.
Richard Horton is the current editor-in-chief of the British Lancet
journal, which is respected as one of the best peer-reviewed medical
journals in the world. He came out and stated:

“The case
against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps
half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny
effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest,
together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance,
science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Then look at
what Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the esteemed New
England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), had to say about the pervasive fraudulent scientific research:

“It is
simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is
published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative
medical guidelines … I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I
reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New
England Journal of Medicine.”

Dr. John
P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of disease prevention at Stanford University,
published a study in a PLoS One paper
entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. He
found that research conclusions are less likely to be true when
study samples sizes are too small, when effect sizes are even smaller, and when
there are major variances in study designs, definitions, outcomes and
analytical modes. He highlighted the corrupting influence of Big
Pharma and concluded that:

“There is
increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … it
is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.”

Fraudulent
Scientific Research Exposed by Other Big Pharma Whistleblowers

Fraudulent scientific
research has also been exposed by former executives and employees of the
Big Pharma machine. In addition to Dr. Peter Rost, another Big Pharma whistleblower
include Dr. John Virapen, author of Side Effects: Death. Confessions of a
Pharma-Insider, who admits in this book that he
“bribed a Swedish professor to enhance the registration of Prozac in
Sweden.” Virapen worked for 35 years in the pharmaceutical industry
internationally (most notably as general manager of Eli Lilly and Company in
Sweden) where he was responsible for the marketing of several Big
Pharma drugs (all of them with side effects). He exposes how Big
Pharma invests more than USD$50,000 per physician per year to
entice them to prescribe their products, how more than 75% of leading
scientists in the field of medicine are “paid for”, and how illnesses are invented by the pharmaceutical industry to increase
profit.

Another Big
Pharma whistleblower is Gwen Olsen,
a former Big Pharma sales rep who really knew how to push for a hard sell. She
reveals the underhanded tactics she was taught by Big Pharma executives to
ensure doctors were prescribing their drugs. After her niece killed
herself while taking antidepressants, she changed her tune and exposed the
tactics. Olsen admits that she used bribery and personal connections to sell
Big Pharma meds, because she found it very difficult to sell drugs on their own
merit, that the true purpose of pharmaceutical drugs is social control,
that Big Pharma buys up real cures to disease, or sues companies not to
release genuine cures. She also reveals how drug effects or side effects were
often separated to avoid full disclosure, e.g. if the effect was on the CNS
(Central Nervous System) then Big Pharma would break it down to say dizziness,
fatigue, etc. so effects would look smaller.

Sadly,
patients were harmed or killed due to Olsen’s (and other drugs reps like her)
intentional sidestepping/misinforming physicians about a drug’s effects. Olsen
refers to the “Revolving Door Syndrome”, meaning patients who are hospitalized
continue to come back repeatedly, and each time lose more of their bodily
functions. The drugs were brain damaging, could induce violence and were slowly
killing them. Meanwhile, many drugs are found to be not more efficacious than a
sugar pill (placebo).

Lastly, it
is also useful to note that fraudulent scientific research has been
acknowledged by governmental officials too. Dr. William Thompson of the CDC (the
US Center for Disease Control) made headlines last year when he bravely came
forth to publicly admit that he had cooked the books and fudged the data
regarding vaccines. Here is an excerpt of his public statement from August
27th, 2014:

“My name is
William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret
that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our
2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested
that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months
were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings
to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study
protocol was not followed.”

Many people
were harmed (or killed) by this instance of fraudulent scientific
research, especially young black baby boys under the age of 3. Consequences for
Thompson or the CDC for this fraudulent scientific research? Basically none. Obama gave him legal immunity – but that’s not
surprising since he also singed the NDAA (claiming the right to imprison any
American indefinitely without charge or trial) and initiated his weekly Kill Lists.

Don’t
Fall for Appeals to “Scientific” or “Clinical” Research when Fraudulent
Scientific Research is So Rife

The lesson
in all this is clear: don’t believe it when you are told by anyone
involved
with the Western Medical Establishment that their products are based
on sound, valid, scientific, clinical evidence. Fraudulent scientific
research is so widespread you can’t know anything for sure. Maybe you
have to use Western Medicine, or maybe you don’t, but don’t go in blindly
believing everything you’re told.

About
the Author

Makia
Freeman
is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and
freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions
for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.

Inventing
viruses: a staggering hoax

“I have
many reasons for exposing hoaxes about viruses. One vital reason:
when people realize the truth, they begin to grasp, at a visceral level, what’s
possible in the area of fake-reality invention. They see their own prior
assumptions go whirling down the drain. They see how many pancakes of
propaganda can be stacked up on one plate. The virus hoax cuts very, very deep,
all the way down into what people automatically accept as Obvious. It isn’t
obvious at all. It’s a complete fabrication. It’s an artifact made out of nothing.”

The return
of Ebola in Liberia — with three new cases reported this week in the previously
Ebola-free country — is worrisome, and raises questions about whether Liberia
was really free of the disease to begin with, experts say.

Reader,
we’re moving into deep waters now. This isn’t just about Ebola. This is about
the whole structure of false medical reality.

And that
reality begins with the arrogant assurance that what’s killing very large
numbers of people can be traced to a virus.

The
“experts” present a unified front. They assert that their tests for these
viruses are correct, pure, and extremely useful.

Yes, the
tests are useful to the pharmaceutical companies who make the drugs that
purport to kill the viruses and the vaccines that purport to give immunity to
the viruses.

And they
mask the fact that actual isolation of the virus from the human body is not
being done.

Several
readers have asked me what “isolation of a virus” means. The most obvious
answer is: you know you’re looking at virus, rather than something else.

For example,
you remove diseased tissue from a human being, and from it you separate out
probable virus from non-viral material, and you then take electron microscope
pictures of the probable, and you look at those picture, and you see lots and
lots of the same virus. Not what could be or might be virus, but definitely
virus.

This is
direct. This is virus from a human. This is not indirect testing that is
faulty, irrelevant, and can go wrong in many ways. Isolation is what you need
to begin to say a virus could be causing a disease.
Let me take you down a road that is rarely traveled and show you a few
precedents where “everybody knows it’s a virus” turned out to be dead wrong.

[According
to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777
of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases
was the flu virus positively identified.

That’s 18.

At various
times, the CDC has stated that, every year, 36,000 Americans die from the
flu…or, after revising that estimate, the CDC states it could be anywhere from
3000 to 49,000.

But only 18
patients’ blood samples showed any sign of the presence of the flu virus.

Consider
Pellagra. In the first half of the 20th century, in the US, there were three
million cases. 100,000 people died. Researchers at health agencies insisted
there had to be germ at the bottom of it. They looked and looked and looked.

Meanwhile,
other researchers found out Pellagra was mainly a deficiency of niacin. They
were pushed into the background. “A bunch of fools. Pay no attention to them.”

Finally,
after 100,000 deaths, most of which were unnecessary, the “experts” grudgingly
admitted, “Yes, it’s niacin.”

Fifty
years ago, there was a massive outbreak of a nervous-system disorder in Japan.
It was called SMON (subacute myelo-optic neuropathy). Tens of thousands of
cases, many deaths. People were in an uproar.

Researchers
were told to look for a virus. So they did. And did. And did. It had to be a
virus.

Against much
opposition, a small group of investigators and lawyers publicly proposed a
different answer. SMON was the result of a drug Ciba-Geigy was selling to
alleviate gastrointestinal distress. The drug was Clioquinol.

Finally
exposed in court, Ciba paid out large $ damages.

It wasn’t a
virus. Even though everybody thought it was. Knew it was.

Here’s
another reference. Jim West, writing at the Weston A Price Foundation,

An insider,
Dr. Frank Plummer, spilled the beans: ‘The director… told The Scientist
yesterday (April 10) that the new coronavirus implicated as the cause of the
disease is certainly around in the environment but is unlikely to be the
causative agent. Frank Plummer is director of Canada’s National Microbiology
Laboratory in Winnipeg.’

Plummer
stated, ‘we are finding some of the best-characterized [SARS disease] cases are
negative [for the SARS virus]. So it’s puzzling. As is the fact the amounts of
virus we are finding, when we find it, are very small—only detectable by very
sensitive PCR [testing].’

Even when
the so-called cause of SARS was found in patients, the amount was so small
there was no way to say it would create disease. Plummer eventually admitted
that the percentage of SARS cases in which the virus was present was
approaching zero. Translation: the viral cause of SARS couldn’t be the cause.

Here’s
another reference, which sheds much more light on what “isolation of a virus”
means: Journalist Christine Johnson’s interview, “Does HIV exist?”
with Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS
scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more, she
[Papadopulos] and her colleagues have published many scientific papers
questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.”

Here is a
brief edited excerpt—the entire interview is published at primitivism.com:

CJ
[Christine Johnson]: Does HIV cause AIDS?

EPE
[Papadopulos]: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EPE: For
many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

…CJ: Didn’t
Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EPE: No. In
the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof
of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients…

CJ: They say
they did isolate a virus.

EPE: Our
interpretation of the data differs…To prove the existence of a virus you need
to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be
a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus.
Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can
take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to
prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it
can replicate.

CJ: Can’t
you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EPE: No, you
can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

CJ: So where
did AIDS research go wrong?

EPE: It’s
not so much a question of where the research went wrong. It’s more a question
of what was left out. For some unknown reason the decades-old method of
retroviral isolation…developed to study animal retroviruses was not followed.
Retroviruses are incredibly tiny, almost spherical particles with diameters of
about one hundred nanometers (one ten-thousandth of a millimeter). Millions
would fit comfortably on the head of a pin.

…CJ: What do
we see in [electron microscope pictures of HIV]… published in 1997?

EPE: These
photographs vindicate the position we have held ever since the beginning. Two
groups, one Franco/German…and one from the US National Cancer
Institute…published pictures…The first thing to say is that the authors of
these studies concede that their pictures reveal that the vast majority of the
material…is cellular. The authors describe all this material as “non-viral”, or
as “mock” virus or “microvesicles,” which are encapsulated cell fragments.

CJ: Are
there any viral particles in these pictures?

EPE: There
are a few particles which the researchers claim are retroviral particles. In
fact, they claim these are the HIV particles, but give no evidence why.

CJ: Are
there lots of these HIV particles?

EPE: No…when
you take an electron micrograph they [HIV particles] should fill the entire
picture. Instead, these candidate retroviruses are minority constituents of the
published electron micrographs. Thus, molecules extracted from these samples
can not be assumed to come from those retroviral-like particles.

—end of
interview excerpt—

So
no, the experts aren’t automatically right when they say, “It’s
a virus.”In the case of Ebola, why should you believe them now?

You can read Rasnick’s bio at his site, davidrasnick.com.
He obtained his PhD from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and spent 25
years working with proteases (a class of enzymes) and protease inhibitors. He
is the author of the book, The Chromosomal Imbalance Theory of Cancer.
He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa.

The subject
of our conversation was the isolation of the Ebola virus from humans. Has it
ever been done?

Direct
isolation is far different from diagnostic tests such as antibody or PCR, which
are both indirect methods of assessment. In previous articles, I’ve covered the
irrelevance of these two tests.

Any
discussion of the Ebola virus must begin with the question of direct isolation.
The whole presumption of an Ebola outbreak and epidemic rests on that question.

Was the
Ebola virus ever purified and isolated from a human?

Here is what
Rasnick wrote, after his search of the published literature:

I have
examined in detail the literature on isolation and Ems [EM: electron microscope
pictures] of both Ebola and Marburg viruses. I have not found any convincing
evidence that Ebola virus (and for that matter Marburg) has been isolated from
humans. There is certainly no confirmatory evidence of human isolation.

I searched
the CDC’s website and came up dry.

The CDC
claims 7728 Ebola virus cases have been ‘laboratory-confirmed’.

I asked the
CDC what constitutes isolation of Ebola virus from human specimens. I also
asked for the protocol for isolating Ebola virus. [No convincing reply from the
CDC as of this date.]

Virtually
everything that is known and done with these viruses is in animals and cell
culture.

Rasnick
continued:

There is the
possibility that Ebola and Marburg viruses represent laboratory artifacts. I’m
inclined to think this is the case. What I mean is the viruses are real but may
exist at very low levels in wild animals and even humans, well-below pathogenic
[disease-causing] levels. These ‘passenger’ viruses may be activated and
amplified in laboratory culturing conditions designed for that purpose in order
to produce enough viral particles to be characterized.

Viruses
causing real pathology are abundant in the diseased tissues. You can see them
using EM on the primary tissue. You do not need to amplify the virus in cell
culture. I’m always suspicious when cell culture is the only way a virus is
observable by EM.

Rasnick’s
findings are a direct challenge to the basis of the whole “Ebola outbreak.” If indeed
the Ebola virus has never been isolated from a human being, the so-called
epidemic is unproven.

To say this
is shocking would be a vast understatement.

When
public-health officials and governments claim there is an epidemic, the burden
of proof is on them.

At this
point, they must, first and foremost, show someone, somewhere, correctly and
directly and undeniably isolated Ebola virus from a human being.

Let’s see
the evidence.

In past
articles, I’ve demonstrated how people could become ill from factors other than
viruses—factors which are ignored and even maintained, in order to keep
populations in a debilitated state, unable to resist their political leaders
and corporations intent on taking over land and resources.

These fake
viral “outbreaks and epidemics” also serve to keep populations in fear, at
which point they look to their leaders to tell them what to do. This is
programming for compliance.

One aspect
of studying the matrix called civilization involves unearthing the most basic
assumptions which people accept—assumptions they couldn’t possibly believe are
false, much less intentionally false.

The analysis
I’m presenting here is one corner on one street in a massive city-labyrinth
called Matrix.

(For more
information on analyzing and deconstructing false realities, see “Analyzing
Information in the Age of Disinformation” in Power
Outside The Matrix.)(To read
about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click
here.)

The
author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX
REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE
MATRIX, and POWER
OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the
29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private
clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power.
Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for
30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS
Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and
magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on
global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the
world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free
OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and
links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search
engines and helps spread your info further!

This site is published under Creative Commons (Attribution) CopyRIGHT
(unless an individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright
holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted
& encouraged - if you give attribution to the work & author and include
all links in the original (along with this or a similar notice).

Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or
mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web –
but remember attribution!

If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too
small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible
worlds…

1 comment:

Just one of many reasons we need to get over the myth of monies value as we value it over human life, and hence we ALL become corrupted by it's influence in our lives. Real crime stoppers would be wise to organize against the money concept for it is the root cause of most every crime against man and or nature as a whole!

Follow New Illuminati on Twitter

SUBSCRIBE to the NEW ILLUMINATI YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Contact Us

Welcome to the new Enlightenment, an era when suppressed science, hidden history and the enlightening nature of reality are all revealed to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

These are the thoughts and ideas of New Illuminati - bold forerunners and pioneers of new awareness all over the globe.

Notes on new emerging paradigms from the NEXUS New Times Magazine Founder R. Ayana, who lives in a remote Australian rainforest (and is no longer involved with the magazine) - Catching drops from the deluge in a paper cup since 1984.

§ 107.Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright – reproduction for non-profit use is OK. Awesome Inc. template. Powered by Blogger.

Claimer

All opinions, facts, debates and conjectures xpressed herein are xtrusions of macrocosmic consciousness into your field of awareness. The New Illuminati are not to be held responsible or accountable for flashes of insight, epiphany, curiosity, transformation or enlightenment experienced by any person, human or otherwise.